"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor canany be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue ispreservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant,and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their ownweight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."

Couldn't open that link, but I am proud to say I was actually there on Sunday. Not everybody's cup of tea to be sure, but let's just say that people who like to hit and be hit with big sticks would not exactly feel uncomfortable there.

Oh, now I could open the link. The idea that "gay leaders" (whoever that is) should prevent kids from attending is pretty silly. For one, there is no "admission" to the fair per se, as anybody can pretty much walk into the blocked-off area anytime they want. If parents want to bring kids though, then clearly they're responsible for explaining to them what exactly they're seeing. Despite all the kinky sex stuff going on there, I think a kid by himself has more to fear at a typical baseball game than at the Folsom Street Fair.

Knowing about deviant sexual subcultures is required part of sexual assault and homicide investigation training. I doubt very much there was anything there i'm unaware of. I've worked male on male sexual assault cases and once dealt with a "transgendered" martial artist that had sexually assaulted multiple children prior to his arrest. The first HIV+ positive inmate I ever dealt with was a teenage male that had contracted it from one of his adult male "lovers". The young man identified himself as "out and proud". As this was before the current drug therapies, I doubt he's alive today.

Forgive me if I don't find this "lifestyle" something worthy of a street fair. The bay area doesn't have private venues where this sort of activity can take place?

I've been to a lot of events like this myself, so I'm pretty used to them and it always cracks me up to read the conservatives barking about it. Although to be fair, I can understand how sex (and people pissing on each other) in public is pretty over-the-top even by the standards of people who don't consider themselves particularly prudish.

I guess my biggest issue with the MM link is the insinuation that whatever "immoral" stuff you see at the FSF is exclusively (or even primarily) from gays. I can assure you the gay:straight ratio was not huge and the straights were just as into it. There are also plenty of gays who wouldn't be caught dead there.

Like I said, not for everybody. But guys with the kind of hobbies we (DB types) do have no business dissing these people for theirs.

People engage in a amazing variety of sexual behaviors. As long as it's consenting adults in the PRIVACY of their own homes, I don't care. Funny how this is OK but the Marines weren't allowed to film in SF.

Knowing about deviant sexual subcultures is required part of sexual assault and homicide investigation training. I doubt very much there was anything there i'm unaware of. I've worked male on male sexual assault cases and once dealt with a "transgendered" martial artist that had sexually assaulted multiple children prior to his arrest. The first HIV+ positive inmate I ever dealt with was a teenage male that had contracted it from one of his adult male "lovers". The young man identified himself as "out and proud". As this was before the current drug therapies, I doubt he's alive today.

Forgive me if I don't find this "lifestyle" something worthy of a street fair. The bay area doesn't have private venues where this sort of activity can take place?

I would have to agree with you GM. I find something's should be left in people's homes and not shoved in the face of everyone. Keep it in your own castle. How about having a street fair for something that really matter's..Helping getting our soldiers home or maybe having a street fair to Celebrate life in general. Having a Street Fair for bondage and Sex is something for a Private venue.

Marines Denied Permission To Film CommercialOn The Streets Of San Francisco By Dan Noyes

SAN FRANCISCO, Sep. 24, 2007 (KGO) - New York said "yes," but we said "no." Why were the U.S. Marines denied permission to film a recruiting commercial on the streets of San Francisco?

San Francisco is, once again, the center of a controversy over how city leaders treat the U.S. military. This time, it involves an elite group of Marines who wanted to film a recruitment commercial in San Francisco on the anniversary of 9/11.

The tension has been building in the two weeks since the city turned away members of the Silent Drill Platoon, and it boiled over Monday afternoon at a meeting of the San Francisco Film Commission.

The U.S. Marine Silent Drill Platoon performed Monday morning in New York's Times Square. They filmed part of a recruitment commercial through the start of the morning rush hour -- something they could not do in San Francisco on the anniversary of 9/11.

"It's insulting, it's demeaning. This woman is going to insult these young heroes by just arbitrarily saying, 'no, you're not going to film any Marines on California Street," said Captain Greg Corrales of the SFPD Traffic Bureau.

Captain Greg Corrales commands the police traffic bureau that works with crews shooting commercials, TV shows and movies in the city. He's also a Marine veteran and his son is serving his third tour of duty in Iraq.

He says Film Commission Executive Director Stefanie Coyote would only allow the Marine's production crew to film on California Street if there were no Marines in the picture. They wound up filming the empty street and will have to superimpose the Marines later.

"Ms. Coyote's politics blinded her to her duty as the director of the Film Commission and as a responsible citizen," said Captain Corrales.

We asked Stefanie Coyote why they're not allowing the Marines to shoot on California Street. She wouldn't answer our questions.

At today's Film Commission meeting, she said she wouldn't let the Marines film because of rush hour.

"Traffic control was the issue," explained Stefanie Coyote.

However, the Marines would have just shut down one lane of California Street for a few minutes at a time, and Captain Corrales points out the Film Commission often approves shoots for rush hour.

"If they want to get the job done, they find a way to get it done," said Captain Corrales.

The city's treatment of the Marines is making many people angry, from local conservatives like Christine Hughes with the San Francisco Republican Party who told us, "it's an embarrassment. I'm a fourth generation San Franciscan and I don't even recognize my city right now."

To current and former Marines like Vince Rios, a Vietnam veteran.

"I'd like to say, 'does your mother know you're doing this? And if so, is she proud of you for that?'" said Vince Rios.

"The city of San Francisco made a statement saying, 'we don't like the war' by shutting down the troops. I don't think that was the right thing to do," explained Eric Snyder, a U.S. Marine.

"I wish to hell she would leave her politics at home and take care of the city business and the bridge business on an even keel basis," said Mike Paige, a Korea veteran.

The Marines also applied for permits to shoot on the Golden Gate Bridge that same morning, but were turned down because of similar traffic concerns.

The end result -- the crew didn't film the Marines in San Francisco at all. They had to go to the National Park Service for permission to shoot in Marin overlooking the bridge and at Kirby Cove.

"Golden Gate National Recreation Area is steeped in military tradition and we're honored to be a part of their continued military traditions so we're glad that we could accommodate the shoot," said Amy Brees with the National Park Service.

Captain Corrales and several other Marine veterans came to the Film Commission Monday afternoon. They see this as just the latest insult along with the city blocking the USS Iowa from docking here, banning the junior ROTC from high schools, and trying to ban the yearly Blue Angels air show.

"This -- a slap in the face of every veteran and every parent of men and women who are doing their duty -- is shameful," said Captain Corrales.

The Marines we spoke with also make the point that the city allows street demonstrations, anti-war protests and other events which snarl traffic, such as Critical Mass. They still don't understand why the Marines got turned away.

It's not exactly a secret that SF is a very liberal city and that a lot of it's residents are against the war, so I don't exactly buy all the shock and outrage from right-wingers. I often feel like these incidents are almost deliberate setups to give them an excuse to bash SF as an America-hating, troop-hating city. But that said, I don't see what the big deal would have been about letting the Marines film a commercial here.

To the point about the FSF, a lot of people would argue that you shouldn't bring kids to a DB gathering because of safety issues or that it "sends the wrong message" that violence is cool (and we all know it is!). Either way, I don't want a bunch of pacifists (or religious, right-wing types) dictating what's appropriate or not appropriate for my kids to see.

I hear a lot of talk from you guys about how mean and intolerant the "Islamofasicts" are in their countries, but how much different are your attitudes when you're faced with something that makes you a little uncomfortable?

Umm, , , no one here is issuing fatwas, calling for beheading, etc. Not a very difficult distinction to make I'm thinking! Some of us are saying that the event in question was a prfoundly inappropriate place to be bringing two year old children.

Woof Rog, SF may very well be a very liberal city, but I also think it has its share of "regular" folks as well. Several were named in the article expressing their outrage that someone would use their position of employment as a political platform. Do you agree with a person using their job as a politcal platform? After all I asssume the tax payers are paying her salary.

So I don't necassarily buy your argument that she was doing the will of the people by banning the U.S. marines from shooting their vid.Did you watch the Vid clip hyperlinked with the post?Why would you think this was a deliberete set up, to bash SF, is there not military bases already in the SF area? Alemeda comes immediatly to mind. I think that argument is just a cop out.Do you agree with what she did?

Quote

I hear a lot of talk from you guys about how mean and intolerant the "Islamofasicts" are in their countries, but how much different are your attitudes when you're faced with something that makes you a little uncomfortable?

I think it would be fair to say.....right back at you...concerning the marine drill team and the treatment they recieved. Do you support the troops? How about performing arts? these guys are a non combat unit that performs drills....actually quite impressive to watch.Who actually are federal employees. I guess tolerence just depends, and goes both ways.Bottom line Rog , do they have as much right to do their thing as the homos do in all their parades ect? TG

Yeah, the key point is under the banner of "multiculturalism", it's ok for the left to take a child to a venue that has public sex acts as if it were just another expression of the bay area's "culture". It's like going to Chinatown for spring festival or Cinco de Mayo in a latin enclave, right?

It's seems the left's "tolerance" is endless, except of course for anything patriotic.

Yes, Rogt. Condeming taking children to see public sex acts is like just like the Taliban executing women for leaving home without a male relative escorting them.

It's not exactly a secret that SF is a very liberal city and that a lot of it's residents are against the war, so I don't exactly buy all the shock and outrage from right-wingers. I often feel like these incidents are almost deliberate setups to give them an excuse to bash SF as an America-hating, troop-hating city. But that said, I don't see what the big deal would have been about letting the Marines film a commercial here.

You guys don't sound like you actually read the last sentence in the above. Take that to mean that I do not agree with the decision to not let them shoot the commercial here.

No, I don't think this was a deliberate setup to make SF look bad. My real point is that the right-wingers see SF as the embodiment of just about everything they consider wrong with America, and will jump at any chance to bash it as such.

IMO, if a lot of right-wingers consider themselves "patriotic" it's because they have a pretty (IMO) messed-up idea of what that word means.

Rog, After seeing the pictures(gag) of the festival. Can you honestly say its appropriate for a toddler to view this kind of behavior?Regardless of weather its homo sex or hetero.....I think this is WAYYYYY too much for a toddler to view live sex acts.

Of course then I suppose if your looking to condition a childs mind into thinking this kind of thing is appropritate behaviour, then starting the younger with the mind control would probably yeild best results.Then again thats why I'am against teaching "gay is ok" to school age children.....so its just my views. TG

It's not exactly a secret that SF is a very liberal city and that a lot of it's residents are against the war, so I don't exactly buy all the shock and outrage from right-wingers. I often feel like these incidents are almost deliberate setups to give them an excuse to bash SF as an America-hating, troop-hating city. But that said, I don't see what the big deal would have been about letting the Marines film a commercial here.

You guys don't sound like you actually read the last sentence in the above. Take that to mean that I do not agree with the decision to not let them shoot the commercial here.

No, I don't think this was a deliberate setup to make SF look bad. My real point is that the right-wingers see SF as the embodiment of just about everything they consider wrong with America, and will jump at any chance to bash it as such.

IMO, if a lot of right-wingers consider themselves "patriotic" it's because they have a pretty (IMO) messed-up idea of what that word means.

In short, I'd say it means "loving your country". That's not the same as "my country, right or wrong!" which is the interpretation many right-wingers have chosen to adopt. For them it's not so much about loving their country (obviously there are plenty of things about it they don't love) as being able to cast their political opponents as hating it.

woof, I admit to being a little perplexed by this whole "festival" thing. How is this not breaking a bunch of public indeceny laws?Not onley too offensive for Miller......but I'am sure too offensive for all but the most bizzare.

Rog, I got to tell you after all the rap you fed me about Christians , and how they need to keep their beliefs to themselves and in their own homes and all that happy stuff.....then you go out and advocate for this garbage.......I'am more than a little disappointed that your not more tolerant to christians. TG

As far as I can see, you guys are the ones who want to keep the troops in harm's way (thus guaranteeing that some will be killed). Why don't you explain to me how this is "supporting" them?

If this country had as many gays, S&M fetishists, etc. as it has Christians and these people were trying to impose their views on everybody the way a lot of Christians are (i.e the equivalents of school prayer, banning abortion, forbidding gays from marrying, etc.) , I'd have just as much of a problem with it.

Tom, you know I respect you and your beliefs (even if I don't share them), but your statement about my "intolerance" towards Christianity is a little silly. Christianity is by far the dominant religion in this country. When you're the group that's basically in charge, you don't really need tolerance, do you?

"the ones who want to keep the troops in harm's way"We are trying to accomplish something, agree with that or not, but certainly not just 'keeping them in harm's way which guarantees that some will be killed. Planet earth IMO is in harm's way for the larger force we are fighting. I know you disagree with the war but those who disagree with this part of this war lost that argument and right now our troops are in harm's way fighting for something. It's hard not to cringe at your previous words wishing them to lose at war. If I am reading you wrong on that or you have already clarified that I apologize; I don't think anyone here intends to mis-state what you have written. In the hypothetical I can appreciate that you wish they were home, but this war is not hypothetical.

My perspective on Christians imposing views - I believe the school prayer issue is about a right to pray, never a requirement to pray at all much less Christian. Banning abortion to me is like banning murder or slavery. It really isn't a desire to run all aspects of people's lives, just to stop the carnage. Do people really still argue that the unborn is not an innocent life? Most pro-life arguments I see are aimed at raising that awareness and at criticizing and overturning what so many believe is a badly-decided case.

"forbidding gays from marrying" - Again, it is not complicated or controversial to me, a single dad, that marriage is a special relationship between a man and a woman, hence the terms husband and wife. A brother and sister or group of close friends might bond together under one roof to take care of each other, our household is a father and daughter, but that does not make a relationship a marriage or cause a need to re-define a pretty good institution. Arguing for rights such as the right to will and inherit and to designate each other for end of life decisions seems perfectly fair, but not to change the meaning of husband and wife. JMHO

Thinking that our troops should be brought home is quite different than hoping they lose. I disagree with the former, but have a real hard time with the latter. As best as I can tell the unavoidable conclusion of opposing our victory is that more die than are dying now.

Here's how I see it. Let's say a good friend of mine whom I've known my whole life is behaving like a bully and as a result, not very many people like him. Then one day he starts a fight with somebody whose ass he's convinced he can kick no problem, but that guy turns out to be a lot tougher than he thought and now it looks like he's the one about to get his ass kicked. I think bullying is wrong and I hate it, but every time the bully succeeds in shaking somebody down or beating them into submission, it only reinforces the idea (in his mind) that bullying is OK because it gets him what he wants. He's my friend, so I won't intervene on his would-be victim's behalf, but if he won't (or can't) figure it out on his own that bullying is wrong, then it stands to reason that getting his ass kicked is the only way he'll get the message. JMHO.

I really don't want to start another debate on abortion and/or gay marriage, since it's unlikely that you and I will agree. I have no problem with somebody thinking that abortion is murder or that marriage is a special relationship between a man and woman, but I do have a problem with people justifying laws against X, Y, or Z simply because the Bible (or their interpretation of it) says they're wrong.

FWIW, I agree with the last paragraph of your post. IMHO, the "civil union" (whether it's between two men, two women, or a man and woman) should be the only relationship recognized by the government. If people want to designate "marriage" as a sacred institution exclusive to a man and woman, I have no problem with that as long it confers no additional legal rights that would be denied to same-sex couples.

Here's how I see it. Let's say a good friend of mine whom I've known my whole life is behaving like a bully and as a result, not very many people like him. Then one day he starts a fight with somebody whose ass he's convinced he can kick no problem, but that guy turns out to be a lot tougher than he thought and now it looks like he's the one about to get his ass kicked. I think bullying is wrong and I hate it, but every time the bully succeeds in shaking somebody down or beating them into submission, it only reinforces the idea (in his mind) that bullying is OK because it gets him what he wants. He's my friend, so I won't intervene on his would-be victim's behalf, but if he won't (or can't) figure it out on his own that bullying is wrong, then it stands to reason that getting his ass kicked is the only way he'll get the message. JMHO.

I really don't want to start another debate on abortion and/or gay marriage, since it's unlikely that you and I will agree. I have no problem with somebody thinking that abortion is murder or that marriage is a special relationship between a man and woman, but I do have a problem with people justifying laws against X, Y, or Z simply because the Bible (or their interpretation of it) says they're wrong.

FWIW, I agree with the last paragraph of your post. IMHO, the "civil union" (whether it's between two men, two women, or a man and woman) should be the only relationship recognized by the government. If people want to designate "marriage" as a sacred institution exclusive to a man and woman, I have no problem with that as long it confers no additional legal rights that would be denied to same-sex couples.

Rog

America is bullying al qaeda in Iraq? Saddam and his sons were victims of American bullying? Are the al qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan victims of our bullying as well?

America is bullying Iraqis in Iraq. Iraqis who had nothing to do with AQ and surely hated Saddam. But they see their friends and family members getting killed, and all of a sudden AQ sounds a lot more appealing to them. What a great accomplishment of ours.

America is bullying Iraqis in Iraq. Iraqis who had nothing to do with AQ and surely hated Saddam. But they see their friends and family members getting killed, and all of a sudden AQ sounds a lot more appealing to them. What a great accomplishment of ours.

Wow. Do you know anything about the war in Iraq at all? You must not have read a lot of the stuff posted here.